What does this have to do with the fact that you just eliminated all forms of argumentation from consideration?
Not to be a wise guy, but I don't think you're really looking at what you're writing here.
I'm eliminating forms on purpose. The point of debate is to focus on formulation, not particular forms themselves.
Debate focuses on how people bring forms into existence, not whether or not a particular form is beautiful.
And, who says? Not all issues are simple enough to solve in an afternoon, and if you think they are, you are in serious need of a basic education. And since when is there some obligatory post-debate outing?
Post-debate outings are when you experience forms. That way, you show appreciation to the other side for coming to a mutual understanding.
So you just admitted that you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Newsflash: "conservatism" means different things to different people. There are any number of ways to interpret its basic tenets, none of which are any more "correct" than any other.
Conservatism requires conserving something. The only way you can conserve something is if you have an idea in mind.
Economics is the means to that end, not the end itself. You can't have property without properness.
You're assuming one must be dependent on the state in order to be a liberal? Since when? I'm not. Most liberals I know aren't. And I certainly know some conservates who are dependent on the state.
Why anyone holds the beliefs they do is almost always far more complex than the Tinker Toy version of psychology you just trotted out. My dad believes what he does, and my mother believes what she does, because it's what makes sense to them for an array of reasons which have taken place over their 60+ year life spans.
It's not as simple as "liberals are reliant on the state and conservatives like to make other people do their work for them." That is a childish, simplistic, irrational way to see the world. Which is pretty much what I expect from you, which is what makes your OP so ironic.
The State is just a mechanism. It institutionally conforms everyone rather than letting people organically define their own culture.
Whether someone depends on welfare or not doesn't matter. Liberals take pride in education, infrastructure, health care, social work, and pensions as State programs.
There are many conservatives who depend on the State, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy from being incapacitated by, and addicted, to it.
You might want to read this segment from my link:
With The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton established himself as one of the most influential expositors of the U.S. Constitution. His political principles, says Kirk, were simple: he was suspicious of local or popular impulses and believed security from a leveling influence lay in a firm national authority. America would not have a unitary central government, so he settled for a federal one, energetically advocating for it with his contributions to “The Federalist” and other pamphlets. According to Kirk, though, his idealism had its flaws. It apparently never occurred to Hamilton that a centralized government could be a leveling and innovating government, nor did he bet on the social changes brought about by the industrialization of the North that he desired. Hamilton was a practical man of great ability, but those abilities, Kirk tells us, “had for their substratum a set of traditional assumptions almost naïve; and he rarely speculated upon what compound might result from mixing his prejudices with the elixir of American industrial vigor.”
Hamilton did not anticipate the stubbornness of the state and local governments in resisting the centralization of power. He thought his program for a strong national government would eventually eliminate these obstacles “by provoking a civil war which did more than all of Jefferson’s speculations to dissipate the tranquil eighteenth-century aristocratic society that really was Hamilton’s aspiration.” Kirk sees Hamilton as well-intentioned but inadequate to the task he set for himself. He was a man of particulars, who never penetrated far beneath the political surface to the “mysteries of veneration and presumption.”